Dhananjay Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85136 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2019 Thana- BARUN District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Dhananjay Singh S/O Ramadhar Singh R/O Village- Karamdih, P.S- Barun, Distt.- Aurangabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Cooperation, Patna, Bihar. Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the BSFC : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-12-2024 Heard Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Food Corporation and Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest connection with Barun P.S. Case No. 217 of 2019, F.I.R. dated 17.08.2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is of misappropriating an amount of Rs. 76,38,750/- on account of not supplying 4365 quintal of CMR against their purchase of paddy.

4. It appears from the record itself that the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85136 of 2024(2) dt.13-12-2024 2/2 has earlier moved before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in the present matter in Cr. Misc. No. 15076 of 2020 which was dismissed by order dated 03.10.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the Bihar State Food Corporation, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the order dated 03.10.2023 which was passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15076 of 2020 which suggests that earlier the petitioner had given an undertaking that he will deposit the entire amount in question but he has not deposited a single amount despite of lapses of more than three years.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the second anticipatory bail is not maintainable, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Barun P.S. Case No. 217 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U T